Old-Salt

LE

Stability is about knowing the consequences of actions. With Saddam in power, the Iraqis knew where they stood and could act accordingly.

With Coalition troops occupying Iraq and a fledgling Iraqi government under attack from all sides, there seems little understanding of who is in control and how long that control will last. As a result, somebody who is your ally today could be your enemy tomorrow.

While my opinion isn't going to be popular, I'd say get Saddam back in power (after first signing an undertaking not to demand reparations).

LE

Previously Saddam was supported by USA in his war with Iran. Maybe his regime was not a cruel dictatorship that time? Now Iran is becoming a threat (real or imaginary) again. So if not Saddam himself but a strongman, a new 'Saddam' (sunni and former general) would be very helpfull.

With American financial resources, sunni-led Iraqi army could be built within few months. Unlikely the insurgents (mainly sunnis) would fight against it. The army would be strongly anti-Iranian. By contrast current shia 'allies' are highly unreliable and a majority are hidden pro-Iranian insurgents.

@TheIronDuke: Russian or any other trolls tend to be dealt with using weapons Russia can never hope to deploy.
Humour Irony Intelligence Knowlege

Old-Salt

Previously Saddam was supported by USA in his war with Iran. Maybe his regime was not a cruel dictatorship that time? Now Iran is becoming a threat (real or imaginary) again. So if not Saddam himself but a strongman, a new 'Saddam' (sunni and former general) would be very helpfull.

With American financial resources, sunni-led Iraqi army could be built within few months. Unlikely the insurgents (mainly sunnis) would fight against it. The army would be strongly anti-Iranian. By contrast current shia 'allies' are highly unreliable and a majority are hidden pro-Iranian insurgents.